Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

It’s not a vote. It’s 97% agreement. Try getting 97% of bitcoiners to agree on something.

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

We had that issue in my country. Some background checks were done on the scientists that disagreed with the 97%. It turns out they were funded by an independent policy think tank. Whose largest donor was a large coal company.

Can any of you shitcoiners explain the following phenomenon? One of the main aspects of a Ponzi are the supposed guaranteed gains just by participating at all. You can argue whether bitcoin itself is a Ponzi or not, but that's tangential to this subject. The subject is people that use the word "hodl" imply the gains are guaranteed. If bitcoin is marketed as a hodl ponzi - and face it, that is the only way bitcoin is marketed to the public, it's not marketed in any other way - how is it not a Ponzi by default? lol.

A Ponzi scheme: "Maintaining the illusion of a sustainable business as long as there continue to be new investors willing to contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and are willing to believe in the non-existent assets that they are purported to own."

they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Stop using the rat kike Ben Shapiro definition of communism and socialism. Communism is a Jewish monetary scam to centralize all the wealth, power, and assets so the Jews can steal it all and rule over the populace as slaves like they did in Russia. Then when the system inevitably implodes, the assets are all transfered off to the Yiddish controllers. Why do you think just about every single Russian Oligarch who ended up with the stolen wealth of Russia is Jewish?

... and straight in there with the usual bodged data and smear tactics tricks.

"Man-made climate change" was never about the science, they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Any chance of useful debate or reasoning is gone now ... perhaps that is just how the socialists like it?

weak sauce

This is why I advocate inter-disciplinary training. Cherry picking one data point and crafting it to a narrative is old hat. However if you stand back and take a look at the whole picture it is much more obvious...to some. Be that as it may..I have the feeling Marcus that you are half into your cup and just looking for a punching bag. So be it.

Peace

p.s. the chart was of a model that was projected in 2006 I believe with actual data well within the 2 sigma delta. these models have been refined and are even more highly accurate today but i could not be arsed to find the latest. the more concerning threat is not climate change anyway its rising co2 levels.